Although negotiators need to build and sustain high‐quality relationships, relatively little attention has been given to how they might accomplish this. Negotiation researchers have focused largely on the role of trust and trust violations in dealmaking, neglecting the insights that relationship science can offer. In this article, I integrate research from the close relationships and marriage therapy literatures with negotiation research. Based on this integration, I identify three common themes—relationship history, shared meaning, and relationship work—and draw out nine lessons for repair following actions that disrupt a relationship between negotiators. Drawing on these three themes and their associated lessons, I conclude by identifying four guiding principles for developing strong positive relationships. The first principle highlights the importance of acting within a critical window. Using the opening moments of a negotiation to establish positive emotional tone and cognitive interdependence builds a constructive foundation. Reappraising temporary impasses as transformational opportunities and resetting positive affect immediately after a temporary impasse stabilizes relationships and returns them to a positive trajectory. The second principle highlights the role of pauses. Stepping back from the moment of a temporary impasse enables negotiators to neutralize negative emotions, creating the psychological space to positively reappraise the impasse as a transformational opportunity. The third principle draws attention to the benefits of creating a positive skew within relationships, that is, increasing the salience of positive moments in a relationship's history. Finally, the fourth principle draws upon the concept of positivity resonance to highlight the benefits of synchronicity: the alignment of cognitions and emotions in a way that establishes a shared perspective and a shared response to temporary impasses.

Negotiation scholars know relatively little about how negotiators can overcome adverse circumstances and end negotiations with an enhanced sense of satisfaction. Using a series of two negotiations simulations, we tested whether cognitive reappraisal influences negotiators’ responses to adverse experiences. After completing a negotiation in which they either did – or did not – encounter difficulties, participants identified a challenging moment and wrote about either the benefits or harms they associated with that moment. They then completed a second negotiation and reported their post‐negotiation satisfaction using the Subjective Value Inventory. Compared to negotiators who did not encounter adversity, those negotiators who did encounter challenges and engaged in benefit finding reported higher levels of process and relationship satisfaction than those who engaged in harm finding. We also found that negotiators reported greater process and relationship satisfaction under adverse circumstances (hard negotiation or harm‐finding appraisal) when their partners used inclusive language (we, ours, us) in the second negotiation.

Recognition of the role played by emotions in negotiation is growing. This article synthesizes current research around four broad themes: moves and exchanges, information processing, social interaction, and context. The authors' review reveals that much of the research on this topic has focused on two key emotions, anger and happiness. More recently, negotiators have turned to other emotions such as guilt and disappointment, demonstrating that not all negative emotions have the same consequences, or activate the same regions of the brain. Focusing on social interaction, the authors note that negotiators may influence each others' emotions: whether negotiators converge to anger or happiness has different consequences for agreement. Researchers have broadened their examination of emotion by considering how external factors such as power, the number of negotiators, culture, and gender influence the impact of emotional expression. The authors also consider the function and impact of expressing authentic emotions, or choosing to use emotions strategically to gain an advantage — an issue that raises important ethical questions for negotiators. The article concludes with some practical implications of the research.

A number of studies have shown that certain events that occur during a negotiation can alter its course. Referred to as “turning points,” these events are precipitated by actions taken either outside or inside the talks that have consequences for outcomes. In this article, we report the results of two experiments designed to examine the impacts of two types of precipitating actions, external and internal. In the first experiment, which focused on external actions, we found that crises — as opposed to breakthroughs — produced more movement in negotiations in which parties viewed the social climate positively (high trust, low power). We found that parties achieved less movement in negative social climates (low trust, high power). In the second experiment, which focused on internal actions, we found that cooperative precipitants (factors inducing change) were more likely to occur when parties negotiated in the context of positive social climates. Negotiation outcomes were also influenced by the climate: we found better individual outcomes for negotiations that occurred in positive climates (high trust, cooperative orientations). Inboth experiments, the social climate of the negotiation moderated the effects of precipitating factors on negotiation outcomes. Perceptions of trust and power filter the way negotiators interpret actions that occur outside or are taken inside a negotiation, which can lead to agreements or impasses.

This essay describes the four broad themes that emerged from our discussion about the role of process in cross‐cultural negotiations and considers their implications for future research. First, we address the nature of the conflict, in particular whether a negotiation is classified as a dispute or a transactional exchange. Second, we contrast the role of cognition and rapport in negotiations and consider when rapport replaces the centrality of cognition. We also discuss the extent to which negotiating processes create relationships based on trust or power, and consider how cultural values influence the development of these underlying relationships. Finally, we consider the role of culture in defining what is perceived as an optimal outcome and raise the possibility that suboptimal outcomes may hold symbolic value in cross‐cultural negotiations.